[adoroszlai]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Fork CI Status appears as a single check, because post-commit.yml only has one job, which calls ci.yml to run real checks.

This change:

• merges ci.yml into post-commit.yml, moving the workflow_call trigger, environment and job definitions
• updates uses: in calling workflows
• removes reference to ci.yml from selective_ci_checks
• adds a selective check test case for post-commit.yml
• renames the secret DEVELOCITY_ACCESS_KEY -> OZONE_DEVELOCITY_ACCESS_KEY, definition in workflow_call trigger, and usage in jobs and caller workflows, to match the name as it is defined in the repo

Hope it would help get back detailed checks in PR summary.

See also #11941 for merging workflows the other way around. I prefer this one, to keep the existing build-branch workflow, although it appears as a bigger change.

There is one small "unrelated" change included: f526c40, which should help avoid triggering full CI for changing only bats tests in dev-support/ci. Found it when #11911 ran full CI instead of just bats tests, and thought it's not worth a separate full CI run.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-17708

How was this patch tested?

CI (in progress):
https://github.com/adoroszlai/ozone/actions/runs/42046987999

[adoroszlai]

@chihsuan please take a look

[chihsuan]

Thanks for working on this! @adoroszlai

Fork CI Status appears as a single check, because post-commit.yml only has one job, which calls ci.yml to run real checks.

I checked fork-ci, and it seems to only mirror the run status as one check (bridge.cjs). This PR's fork run also shows the same single check.

So I think merging the workflows may not change what the PR shows. I'd suggest extending fork-ci to list failed job names in that check instead. What do you think?

[adoroszlai]

Thanks a lot @chihsuan for checking.

Fork CI Status appears as a single check, because post-commit.yml only has one job, which calls ci.yml to run real checks.

I checked fork-ci, and it seems to only mirror the run status as one check (bridge.cjs). This PR's fork run also shows the same single check.

So I think merging the workflows may not change what the PR shows.

Nice, then it's not about how our workflow is set up.

I'd suggest extending fork-ci to list failed job names in that check instead. What do you think?

Would you like to make that change?

Closing this for now, as the fix would not be in these workflows.

[chihsuan]

Would you like to make that change?

Sure, I'd be happy to give it a try. 🙂